Intuitiver und rationaler kognitiver Stil bei der Personalauswahl

Personnel selection has been criticised by scientific researchers
for its intuitive interpersonal perception (e.g. Guion, 1998,
Obermann, 2002 etc.). Despite extensive scientific research in
organizational setting (Mell, 1988; Schuler, 2001 etc.), Human
Resource practitioners attribute their successful decisions to
intuition (Nowicki & Rosse, 2002). In the Studies 1 to 4,
personnel decisions made by the participants with different
cognitive styles were tested. Participants were asked to select the
best candidate based on his resume and recommendations (Study 1).
The candidates had to be evaluated after the structured interview
(Study 2) or after the group discussion during the Assessment
Center (Study 4). Participants also had the possibility to decide
using the scores of the candidates achieved during the Assessment
Center (Study 3). The results of the first four studies revealed
that the intuitive cognitive style was very successful in
situations when working with information (e.g. scores, resumes).
This finding supports opinions of the organizational practitioners
(Agor, 1989 etc.). At the same time, intuitive interpersonal
judgment (e.g. observation) was significantly worse than rational.
This finding supports the recommendations of organizational
psychologists to use standardized methods (e.g. personality tests
and structured interviews). One explanation of these findings is
that intuitive participants have a higher confirmation-bias than
rational participants, which was found to influence negatively
successful decision making (e.g. Kray & Galinski, 2003).
Intuitive participants showed higher confirmation bias than
rational participants, especially in the step-by-step procedure.
Rational articipants were interested in the controversial
information, but not when asked to decide spontaneously.
Alternative explanation of these considers the learning style
preferences of the intuitive and rational participants. Rational
participants tend to use Realistic Observation, which might explain
their good observer qualities. Intuitive participants tend to use
Active Experimentation and might handle data with ease, in
comparison to the rational participants. Studies 3 and 4 continued
investigation on the intuitive and rational decision making in
different stages of the personnel selection. Intuitive decision
makers were found to be better when handling with big amounts of
partially missing, irrelevant information or handling scores of the
standardized procedures. They also had higher preferences for
cognitive bias and selecting the recommendations supporting their
opinion then opposite to it. This could be explained by their
learning style preferences – active and pragmatic. Looking for new
things and implementing findings. Rational decision makers were
more theoretical and looking for controversial information, except
for the situations when under stress or forced to make a decision.
In this case, similar to the intuitive participants, they also tend
to search for consistent information. In the Study 5, we have
measured the performance evaluation of groups with rational and
intuitive cognitive styles, as well as heterogeneous groups. The
findings supported the results of the previous studies (e.g.
Armstrong & Priola, 2001) that intuitive groups are more
successful when working in the natural conditions. Intuitive
members come along with each other and don’t report difficulties
even when working in the virtual environment. Heterogeneous groups
reported no difficulties in the mutual work or communication with
each other. In sum, we have studied the influence of the intuitive
and rational style on the personnel decisions made when using
different personnel selection methods (application screening,
employment interview, Assessment Center, recommendations). We have
also studied the mutual work of the participants with different
cognitive styles.